2016 (1) TMI 394 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - it was submitted that the concerned employee was on leave was given for delay in filing the appeal - Held that - The delay was almost three months beyond the statutory time of three months. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) specifically examined the request for condonation of delay, to exercise powers under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 and discussed the same in para 11 of her order. The material submitted by the appellants were examined and same are found to be factually incorrect and not in consonance with the pleadings made by the appellant. Accordingly, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that there is no justifiable ground for condonation of delay as she was not satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the period of three months as stipulated under Section 85. Condonation denied - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed beyond prescribed time period under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994.
- Justifiability of delay in filing appeal.
- Examination of submissions for condonation of delay.
- Comparison with relevant case laws.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which was rejected as not maintainable due to being filed beyond the time period specified under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant received the original order on 19.01.2009 and filed the appeal on 14.07.2009, without disputing the delay. The appellant cited the concerned employee's leave as the reason for the delay. The Tribunal noted the appellant's plea on merit and the bonafide delay in filing the first appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

When the case was scheduled for hearing, no representative appeared on behalf of the appellant despite prior intimation. The Ld. AR argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no legal basis to interfere with the impugned order, as the reasons for the delay were found factually incorrect. The Tribunal considered case laws cited by the appellant, emphasizing the need for justifiable grounds for condonation of delay. However, the Tribunal found that the reasons presented by the appellant did not substantiate a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal compared the present case with various judgments where condonation of delay was considered based on specific circumstances. In the current matter, the Commissioner (Appeals) thoroughly examined the appellant's submissions for condonation of delay. Despite the delay being almost three months beyond the statutory period, the Commissioner found the reasons provided factually incorrect and not in line with the appellant's pleadings. Consequently, the Commissioner concluded that there was no justifiable ground for condonation of delay, as the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay as required under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeal based on these findings.